Tables resetting even if a game doesn't actually starts

[Mars4ever]

Hi there, I don't know if someone else has already talked about this. By the way, this is the problem that I often encounter:
there are some games that I like but it's very difficult to find other partecipants, so I try to open more tables at the same time in order to hope that at least one among them goes to something. After long minutes, one game gets filled up, but there's even the usual annoying stupid player that doesn't confirm the start (and still don't know why there's some people that enjoy in bustin other's balls in this way), so I'm forced to abort it!

Besides that, all of the other pending tables that I had opened, and maybe with a second player out of the 3 or 4 needed, that was trying to partecipate, are all dead and I have to reopen then from scratch.
That's realllly frustrating! Am I the only one that encountered this behavior? Why is it not possible to cancel the other pending tables only if one of them ACTUALLY STARTS?
So, what's the purpose of having hundreds of games if it's barely impossible to play something other than 7 wonders or terraforming mars, and if the chance of starting rare games is obstacled by technical issues like this?
If an abort wouldn't affect the other pending games, that maybe would be less a big deal, what do you think? Thanks

[tarongot]

Hi there, I don't know if someone else has already talked about this. By the way, this is the problem that I often encounter:
there are some games that I like but it's very difficult to find other partecipants, so I try to open more tables at the same time in order to hope that at least one among them goes to something. After long minutes, one game gets filled up, but there's even the usual annoying stupid player that doesn't confirm the start (and still don't know why there's some people that enjoy in bustin other's balls in this way), so I'm forced to abort it!

Besides that, all of the other pending tables that I had opened, and maybe with a second player out of the 3 or 4 needed, that was trying to partecipate, are all dead and I have to reopen then from scratch.
That's realllly frustrating! Am I the only one that encountered this behavior? Why is it not possible to cancel the other pending tables only if one of them ACTUALLY STARTS?
So, what's the purpose of having hundreds of games if it's barely impossible to play something other than 7 wonders or terraforming mars, and if the chance of starting rare games is obstacled by technical issues like this?
If an abort wouldn't affect the other pending games, that maybe would be less a big deal, what do you think? Thanks

I agree with you 100%. Other tables you create should be closed only after games starts, although that might create same problem with players joining and no starting where someone waits to star at one table, at same time same person blocks other table to start forothers. So something you wrote above too.

As for that behavior, unfortunately, it may not be intentional. Some people, like me, and I'm guessing you too, use lobby page to create and join tables. But others use automated BGA feature to do same. So BGA algorithms join them to tables over and over again making impression that they do that to irritate you, or me.

[Mars4ever]

What is a lobby page? Never heard of it.
Anyway the players joining a table but never confirming the start of the game ara a plague and there's the urgent need for a solution.
It's not that difficult, why don't just add a 20 s limit with auto expulsion after lagging for no reason?

[tarongot]

What is a lobby page? Never heard of it.
Anyway the players joining a table but never confirming the start of the game ara a plague and there's the urgent need for a solution.
It's not that difficult, why don't just add a 20 s limit with auto expulsion after lagging for no reason?

this is lobby page:
https://boardgamearena.com/lobby

And "why don't just add.." that is good question. I have an answer for it, same as for question "why after many years there is still no ELO/ranking system for coop games"?. And many other questions. BGA doesn't care for that, and players doesn't want to demand that from BGA. From time to time someone will just complain for this or that, few might even join, and mater will die on its own. Only change I see is layout/graphic one from time to time.

[Mars4ever]

I remember that coop games had elo but it was removed. I think it's because it's easy to cheat with your friends to get free points for everybody.
For the same reason I don't give too much importance to achievements about consecutive victories even in competitive games: what can prevent us to decide to play 40 matches of a game and combine 20 wins for me and 20 for you so we both get the XPs?

this is lobby page:
https://boardgamearena.com/lobby

Oh, but it's the regular tables manager I was talking about, I just didn't know it's called lobby.
So I still don't understand why there are a lot of people that join tables but don't confirm the start.

[tarongot]

I remember that coop games had elo but it was removed. I think it's because it's easy to cheat with your friends to get free points for everybody.
For the same reason I don't give too much importance to achievements about consecutive victories even in competitive games: what can prevent us to decide to play 40 matches of a game and combine 20 wins for me and 20 for you so we both get the XPs?
...

This is just excuse. In competitive you can cheat that way too, and people are doing it. From time to time someone post about that. And yet somehow ranking is not turned off for competitive games .

Oh, but it's the regular tables manager I was talking about, I just didn't know it's called lobby.
So I still don't understand why there are a lot of people that join tables but don't confirm the start.

Maybe they are messing with you, but BGA feature for automated table creating, or simple one of many BGA crashes, pages not refreshing etc.. are good possibility to.

[Mars4ever]

How can you cheat in agreement with a friend to both level up in a competitive game? You can help each other to get more consecutive or total victories, but elos and arena scores remain about the same.

[tarongot]

How can you cheat in agreement with a friend to both level up in a competitive game? You can help each other to get more consecutive or total victories, but elos and arena scores remain about the same.

You can't, if that is true friend not your other account. But so called cheating in coop games is only excuse nothing more. It will be less problem then it is in competitive games. And it's not even close to overcome benefits that ranking for coop will give.

For now you have no idea who you join table with. People that have master status in coop game, sometimes barely get game's basic. And how it is that even on BGA Pandemic(coop game) can have normal rating/ELO? and other games can't?

[tbhp]

I remember that coop games had elo but it was removed. I think it's because it's easy to cheat with your friends to get free points for everybody.
For the same reason I don't give too much importance to achievements about consecutive victories even in competitive games: what can prevent us to decide to play 40 matches of a game and combine 20 wins for me and 20 for you so we both get the XPs?

Technically someone can start 100 turn based games and delay ending the ones where they are losing, and get the Berserker trophy that way.

Trophies that aren't arena/tournament aren't treated with the same competitive strictness, because people are aware they are not exactly a competition anyway. Sure, if someone gets to first Elo rank through shady means, that could bother some people, but no one is going to be too mad about it.

[tbhp]

What is a lobby page? Never heard of it.
Anyway the players joining a table but never confirming the start of the game ara a plague and there's the urgent need for a solution.
It's not that difficult, why don't just add a 20 s limit with auto expulsion after lagging for no reason?

How is it a solution? All the people who are willing to wait more than 20 seconds would be forced to start another search, thus probably wasting more time than if they had just been able to wait for the late player.

Letting people decide if they want to cancel the table is the obvious best solution.